We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Our initial post about Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 1522004 (1st Cir. May 2, 2012), was more or less a crie de coeur over what we saw as an essentially absurd result: that while a simple warning claim involving a generic drug is indisputably preempted under PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011), a claim much more fundamentally in conflict with FDA approval of generic drugs that state tort law can impose liability for not removing an FDA-approved product off the market entirely supposedly is not

The First Circuit decided Bartlett v. v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., No. 10-2277, slip op. (1st Cir. May 2, 2012) today - suggesting that it is the worst court of appeals in the country for defendants in prescription pharmaceutical product cases

We’ve posted before about MDLs and the Darvocet MDL in particular being the new “heavyweight” division for the one-two punch of product identification (can’t sue non-manufacturers) and generic preemption (can't sue generic manufacturers) to dispose of meritless claims involving generic drugs on a large scale